I graduated from a public high school in Texas, representing my high school in various university interscholastic league science contests. So it's with more than a passing interest that I look with alarm at certain misguided social conservatives, including the Texas Board of Education chairman Dr. Don McLeroy, trying to impose sophistry (i.e., creationism or so-called intelligent design) into the school curriculum. The last thing we need, in a country where ready availability of quality math and science teachers are crucial to the development of scientists and engineers necessary for America's future in the global economy, is to confuse impressionable young men and women, posing propaganda and intellectual surrender as legitimate scientific inquiry and criticism. Let me make myself perfectly clear, Dr. McLeroy: I believe what you are attempting to do undermines the integrity and foundation of our public schools. What we need is higher rigor and expectations of our young people, not settling for anti-scientific mediocrity and regurgitation of fringe arguments. Texas deserves better; America deserves better.
Obama as Commencement Speaker at Notre Dame? Cuomo redux.
I have no doubt that we will hear Notre Dame justify the invitation in the interests of academic pluralism (and, of course, the historic nature of the first black President). As President, Obama does not need this particular pulpit, but if there's anything Obama understands, it's symbolism. As a Catholic, I resent a prominent Catholic university being used to promote Obama's agenda, including expansive pro-abortion choice rights, embryonic stem cell research, and gay rights, all of which go against definitive Church moral teachings. (In terms of gay rights, I'm speaking of attempts to redefine marriage and sexual behavior, not in terms of tolerance and fundamental dignity as a person.)
We have already the precedent of former New York Governor and Roman Catholic Mario Cuomo, whom in 1984 used the soapbox to delineate his personal "I-personally-oppose-abortion-but-will-not-impose-my-religion" philosophy, which has been a blueprint for all subsequent Catholic Democrats (e.g., Pelosi, Biden, Kennedy, and others) to rationalize their groupthink politically expedient position in favor of abortion rights. It has all the moral foundation of Stephen Douglas' stand in favor of popular sovereignty to deal with the matter of slavery (let majority vote in a state decide whether a state should be slave or free); Douglas claimed he was personally opposed to slavery, but he supported the infamous Dred Scott decision and was willing to let any state, even a Northern free one, vote itself a slave state. To those of us whom believe in the political ideals of republicanism (I'm speaking here of political philosophy, not necessarily the GOP), the idea of majoritarian rule determining an individual's unalienable rights is unaccceptable.
Despite high marks for his oratorical excellence, Obama often comes across as wonkish, long-winded, maddeningly nuanced, evasive and indirect, and overreliant on cheap tactics like straw men, scapegoats (in particular, George Bush) and mock indignation. A case in point was when Obama, who used to teach Constitutional law at the University of Chicago, contradicted his own administration, which insisted the AIG management contracts were legal, and once again sparked an overreaction from the Democratic House of Representatives, resulting in an initial passage of a retroactive, punitive tax measure targeted at bonuses on bailout recipients. When asked to comment by 60 Minutes, specifically asking him to evaluate the measure's constitutionality, Obama subtly implied there were problems with the House measure's approach, but stopped short of threatening a veto, which would have killed the bill in the Senate.
Notre Dame is trying to mute criticism of inviting the most radically pro-abortion choice President ever elected by also inviting pro-lifers. I don't think we pro-lifers are trying to censor the President; we realize not all Americans share our commitment to the unalienable rights of unborn children. But Obama goes beyond lip service on behalf of unrestricted abortion. He prevented passage of the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which requires medical personnel to assist babies born alive in abortion procedures. (Certain Illinois hospitals even left some relevant babies to die unattended.) The act was passed and signed into law the year Obama joined the U.S. Senate. Transcripts at the time show Obama was concerned that signing the law would undermine Roe v. Wade and thought the mandate to provide necessary medical assistance to a surviving baby constituted an undue burden on abortionists--but he also opposed it after language was added to the bill that specifically addressed Roe v. Wade concerns. Not only that but the US Conference of Catholic Bishops strongly opposes Obama's 2007 co-sponsored version of the Freedom of Choice Act, which would go beyond codifying Roe v. Wade, in terms of promoting abortion and rolling back even modest restrictions against partial-birth abortions, informed consent, and parental notificaton.
Illinois Empress Casino v. Giannoulias: Ruling Violates the Bill of Rights
Former Governor Blagojevich and his brother were caught discussing political contributions of about $100K from horse racing track operators (not to mention over $300K in contributions in 2002-2007 from track owner John Johnston) as a quid pro quo for signing legislation transferring "purse money" from riverboat casinos to racing tracks. The casino owners are furious, rightfully claiming violations of their Fifth Amendment rights. The Illinois Supreme Court denied the constitutional argument, claiming that the precedents normally deal with things like land, not money. This is unconscionable, taking a nuanced position on type of property which is not based on strict interpretation of the Fifth Amendment. I wonder if any of these justices took classes in Constitutional law under Professor Obama; if so, they probably took a little too literally his concept that "it's good to spread the wealth around". It's time for the US Supreme Court to take the Illinois Supreme Court to the woodshed and reaffirm the Fifth Amendment means what it says.
